Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 25124 - The ebuild for net-www/mod_auth_kerb is both outdated and incomplete.
Summary: The ebuild for net-www/mod_auth_kerb is both outdated and incomplete.
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: x86 Linux
: High blocker (vote)
Assignee: Apache Team - Bugzilla Reports
Depends on:
Reported: 2003-07-23 10:52 UTC by Dave Monnier
Modified: 2004-06-19 16:13 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Unified diff between 4.13.ebuild and 4.13.ebuild (mod_auth_kerb-4.11_to_13.diff,2.31 KB, patch)
2003-07-23 19:36 UTC, Dave Monnier
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dave Monnier 2003-07-23 10:52:50 UTC
The ebuild for mod_auth_kerb only supports apach2 and is only at 4.11. 4.13 is the latest.  I've 
written an updated version, included support for apache-1.x (as needed by myself and how I 
discoverred the state of the ebuild).  We, Indiana University, would like to return this code back 
to the tree but I'm not certain the process.  
Feel free to contact me for the updated ebuild. 

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Donny Davies (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 17:35:47 UTC
gee whiz id really love to chase you around on this, but if you're not
going to attach it here, forget it.

i took all the time and initative to create this ebuild, on my own free
time, for free, for the benefit of the community...

so why cant you do the same?
Comment 2 Donny Davies (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 17:51:57 UTC
what i meant was, please attach it here and i'll merge it.
Comment 3 Donny Davies (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 17:56:36 UTC
sorry if you feel damaged, personally, for what i said in #1 but you really should have just attached your changes in the first place.
Comment 4 Kurt Lieber (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 17:58:12 UTC
Dave -- 

Please accept my apologies on behalf of the entire Gentoo team for woodchip's behavior.  That is not how we like to treat our userbase and I'm sorry you had to be subject to such rudeness.

If you would prefer, please send me the ebuild directly at and I will take care of sending it on to the appropriate folks.

Comment 5 Donny Davies (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 18:35:30 UTC
If you post an inline patchfile generated with 'diff -u', that will be the fastest way to have your changes adopted.

Comment 6 Dave Monnier 2003-07-23 19:36:49 UTC
Created attachment 14949 [details, diff]
Unified diff between 4.13.ebuild and 4.13.ebuild

The other two files reuired for the ebuild are the same as the original.  
`cp files/11_mod_auth_kerb.conf files/13_mod_auth_kerb.conf` is all we've done
for the .conf. The patch for apache2 is untouched. We don't currently use
apache2 however would be willing to install and test the build with apache2.

We are required to include our copyright into all code submissions we release.
We are also interested in maintaining this package and a few more we'll be
releasing soon if the current maintainer is interested in handing it off.
Comment 7 Dave Monnier 2003-07-23 19:41:22 UTC
We are required to include our copyright into all code submissions we release. We 
are also interested in maintaining this package and a few more we'll be releasing 
soon if the current maintainer is interested in handing it off. If so, we have apropriate 
changelog entried from our portage cvs. If not, we can continue to follow this 
process as we will be maintaining it for our own use as well. 
I might recomend making this process more aparent as the "way to do things". My 
initial post was asking how to go about getting code back to you. 
Additional notes in the comments field for the attachment. 
Comment 8 Donny Davies (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 20:04:40 UTC
most things look ok -- nothing to get into too big of a twist over.

some things do puzzle me though.

-		-ldl -lkrb5 -lcom_err -lk5crypto -c ${PN}.c || die
+		-ldl -lkrb5 -lcom_err -lk5crypto -c mod_auth_kerb.c || die;
^^ I dont understand why you do that.

you've also got '\' on the end of many lines.  not neccesary.

i wouldnt particulary mind giving up maintainership of this ebuild,
which i myself wrote.  i dont really use it so it makes some sense
to have somebody who *does* use take over maintainership.  however
im not sure how you're going to do this without getting Gentoo
Developer account, otherwise you're going to need a middleman to
go through every time you have a change.

I do not understand why you've renamed 11_mod_auth_kerb.conf
to 13_mod_auth_kerb.conf.

This change is bogus:

I dont particulary have a problem with this change:
.... you must be happy with the way its working to make that change,
so thats fine with me.

Ok, now for the big one.  This is not permitted, as far as I know:
+# Copyright 2003 The Trustees of Indiana University

As far as I know, our policy permits -only- copyright assignments
to Gentoo Technologies, Inc, and thats it.

I'll need to make some cleanups to this before I can put it into CVS.

But I really need you to reconsider the Copyright assignment issue.
After all this is just an ebuild file, and there is -no- other ebuild
in the portage tree which attributes copyrights to anybody else other
than Gentoo Linux.

Also, it somewhat irks me because, as I say, I *wrote* the ebuild
and had/have no problem attributing the copyright to Gentoo Tech. Inc.
I dont think its fair that you might be able to get an attribution,
whereas I have -none- except for a small blurb in the changelog
saying that I in fact did write it.

Would you settle for a statement in the ChangeLog saying that the
updates in the latest ebuild are from "your name @ your organization" ?

Again, sorry for the attitude earlier.  You certainly didnt catch me
at the best time.  I admit though that I found the subject line
"both outdated and incomplete" mildly insulting.  Im not talking
huge, painful insult here, Im talking poor tact, thats all.

Cheers Mate.
Comment 9 Dave Monnier 2003-07-23 20:19:39 UTC
My apologies for the misunderstanding. The field in the zilla that becomes the 
subject asks for a brief description. That is all it was, I've never met you and 
certainly have no reason to belittle your efforts. 
As for notice of copyright. We've used other ebuilds holding multiple copyright as 
our example.  If you'd like I can find the list we generated of multiple copyright 
ebuilds in portage that we used as examples when we started discussion of gifting 
back the ebuilds from our own portage tree.  We're required as an educational 
institution to include that line, it in no way affects the license of the work. It there for 
no reason other than to ensure Indiana University is credited with the work. 
The variations in syntax we've used were mostly due to the original ebuild being 
used only from our own portage tree. We wanted to start with something very small 
like this before we started releasing the larger works we have in progress. In the 
future, if we're able to continue as contributors, we'll ensure our team is familar with 
the ebuild developers document and correct syntax usage. 
Comment 10 Jon Portnoy (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 20:32:23 UTC
Ebuilds with copyright owned by other people are a mistake.

If we don't own copyright on ebuilds and other core pieces of Gentoo, we cannot defend ourselves legally and it puts us in a very, very uncomfortable position.

I am willing to have this placed on the agenda item for the next manager's meeting and have asked Kurt to do so.
Comment 11 Dave Monnier 2003-07-23 20:41:39 UTC
Ok, I guess we have to revoke our submission then. Our lawyers insist we include 
that as we are a state funded org.  I'm not sure what the confusion of ownership is 
exactly as Gentoo is still clearly listed as the owner of the document and Indiana 
University as a contributor. We've cleared this process on a number of other 
projects of various license including the GPL.  This may be a major hit to 
contributions for the distribution as any .org or .edu that is paying people to develop 
for Gentoo are going to require this. 
I hope your policy changes in the future.  Is there some process for removing this 
from bugzilla ? Or will you handle that? 
Comment 12 Jon Portnoy (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-23 20:57:48 UTC
As far as I know, copyright law does not allow multiple people to own the same pieces of something. Additionally, copyright law places restrictions on the length of what can be "owned"; what you are suggesting is that you own 28 lines of the ebuild and we own 17 lines (if I'm counting correctly). I'm not sure that leaves either of us in a place to enforce copyright.

What you need to know is that we must protect ourselves. I am not sure what the justification for your employer wanting to own copyright on it is; it sounds suspicious to me, frankly. It puts us in a position where we likely cannot enforce copyrights on integral parts of Gentoo. Many projects are working with a large codebase where they can likely enforce copyright based on the fact that they still hold copyright on much of what the contributed work touches - with something as small as an ebuild, it's very sketchy.

I am sorry that we were not able to work this out to your satisfaction.
Comment 13 Donny Davies (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-26 17:08:07 UTC
Comment 14 Jon Portnoy (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-07-28 11:31:09 UTC
Method tells me Daniel is going to consult his lawyer about this kind of situation, so we'll wait until then.
Comment 15 Jon Portnoy (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-11-20 11:51:04 UTC
We now have forms to deal with this kind of situation. We'll be working on getting these out soon.
Comment 16 Chuck Short (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-04-22 11:14:03 UTC
Any update on the resolution of this?

Comment 17 Dave Monnier 2004-04-22 11:24:15 UTC
Hey Chuck,

Unfortunatly there does not appear to be a solution to the copyright issue.  The form given to us includes a requirement for the surrender of copyright to 
Gentoo tech.  That won't work for anyone paid by public funds (Universities, State/Federal Offices, etc).  It would be illegal for us to contribute state funds, in the form of man hours, to any private entity.  The inclusion of a shared copyright solves this problem.  Without that, we simply cannot contribute anything as an official entity legally.  We've simply maintained our own portage tree for the past year or so.

Comment 18 Jon Portnoy (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-04-22 12:23:23 UTC
Dave: can you (or someone else at IU) get in touch with drobbins about the shared copyright agreement? We finally got all that worked out and now have an agreement that can deal with shared copyright, but I don't have the details on it (Daniel does). It'd be great if we could get that in place and start committing IU's work to the tree.
Comment 19 Chuck Short (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-06-02 12:19:53 UTC
Still no update?
Comment 20 Chuck Short (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-06-10 09:19:49 UTC
What about an update?
Comment 21 Kurt Lieber (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-06-10 09:24:08 UTC
Last I heard, the contract was in the hands of the IU lawyers.  At this point, I believe we're waiting on them before we can continue.
Comment 22 Chuck Short (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-06-19 16:13:23 UTC
Please re-open when legal issues are resolved.